Living in a state that does have an income tax, I have to say that I don't have much sympathy for the billionaires who are crying over the fact that they might get taxed on the part of their income over $200,000 per year. Aw, isn't that just too bad.

The pressure of being a multi-billionaire is immense. Maybe these tragic ones could find peace in some other climate. Maybe a place where Monsoons are spelled with accent marks? But why there? Well, that was were their wealth came from of course. There's good times there, and everyone knows their name.

I dunno about "billionaires". I bet many of their better software engineers are making close to that much, and many of them in 2-income families (I assume the threshold there is higher but still present). That marginal rate is half of California's. And unlike Seattle, Silicon Valley has pleasant weather. All of a sudden Seattle is going to look a little less attractive, and a little less competitive a location to do business.

I bet many of their better software engineers are making close to that much...

You mean actual, non-management, I-write-software-all-day people making near $250k per year at M$ and/or Amazon? I've worked at one of those companies, and I seriously doubt it--I would be really surprised if more than 1% of software engineers make more than $150k.

I dunno about "billionaires". I bet many of their better software engineers are making close to that much

a) I bet very few of them make close to that much. The average rate for software engineers is not 6 figures. Most don't make 100k. Some small fraction make 6 figures. And some tiny fraction clear $200k. If anyone is doing significantly better than that its likely from 2ndary income from investments that are paying off... rental income on the condo, stock options, etc.

b) I don't know tax options at all in the US, but around here one can usually qualify for several tax deductions before calculating tax rates. There is often a substantial difference between gross income and "net taxable income". I would expect a person making $220k gross income could likely easily have a taxable income down at $190k, and still not pay this tax.

At $250k, suppose you get it down to $230k, and then have to pay this 5% tax on income over 200k. Oh noes you make a quarter million dollars, and a tax bill of $1500 is going to send you packing.

and many of them in 2-income families (I assume the threshold there is higher but still present).

Doubled so not relevant as you noted yourself in a follow up.

That marginal rate is half of California's. And unlike Seattle, Silicon Valley has pleasant weather.

Right. Move to california, the bankrupt state. I'm sure they won't raise taxes any time soon. Meanwhile you can enjoy a myriad of other things like electricy that costs twice as much...

All of a sudden Seattle is going to look a little less attractive, and a little less competitive a location to do business.

Good riddance. I'm sure the people who stay behind will be happy to pay a couple thousand bucks in taxes and fill all those piles of 250k/year software engineering jobs that get left vacant.;)

Most didn't get that way from $400k household salary, they got that way from stock options which would likely be capital gains, not income. Although having no idea how Washington calculates income, I can only guess that it is the same as AZ, where it is based off the federal return, and the state (like the fed) has a lower capital gains rate completely un-effected by your income level (although it has been ~5 years since I made enough capital gains to care.)

The top American marginal income rates from 1944 to 1963 were 92%. Yes, 92% of income made over the top amount, went to taxation. In 1944, if you made over $200,000, 92% went to the government. In 1963, it was $400,000. And yet, this was a period of profound economic expansion and middle class comfort. Kind of makes you want to question the "conventional wisdom" that all taxes are bad.

Treating the rest of the community as a collective commons with no need to give bad leads to the tragedy of the commons.

In our system, without correct, you end up with a tiny group with all the resources and no one else can buy anything.

To make it obvious, let's say that 20 people start working a collective farm and through hard work, 1 person comes to own everything.

Now, those 19 people are going to something besides stand aside and die. So does the 1 person want it to be a peaceful robbery where they still get to keep most of their stuff or a violent robbery where they lose everything and possibly be dead.

Also, say there is a cost of running that field, since the 1 now owns all of the field- shouldn't they pay the entire running cost? And if they owned 19/20th of the field, shouldn't they cover 19/20th of the cost of running that field?

The problem we face to day is that SSI, unemployment tax, medical insurance costs scale at a per employee basis so there is a strong inducement to remove labor wherever possible. We need to change taxes to be on gross corporate profits and move away from taxing on an employee basis.

Otherwise we are going to end up with companies where 1 person runs a bunch of automated processes on computers and a bunch of robotic labor in the warehouse (already happening- google robot warehouse diapers.com businessweek- so don't even argue that it won't happen) because robotic labor is now down to about $15,000 per year leased. They are not paying any of the cost of society but they are mining society for money. Once society runs out of money and can't find jobs, it can't by products at any price.

We are headed down a bad path and need to start turning now or we will be looking at much higher unemployment rates and even lower salaries. The system started unraveling back in the 90's. The rate is accelerating.

You don't have to be a communist to realise that these people wouldn't have become billionaires without the existence of a stable society with the rule of law, a stable currency, and massive amounts of public infrastructure, you just need to compare the average wealth of people in Somalia and the USA. But somehow you do need to be a libertarian to think that expecting those that have benefitted the most from society to pay towards its upkeep is theft.

Just because a state doesn't have income taxes doesn't mean that they don't have a way of collecting revenue to support their residents' use of infrastructure, you know? For example: there are states with no income tax, but quite substantial property taxes. Or substantial sales and use taxes. Rich people spend money, and own property. They are taxed far more, in that area, than people who rent (or own modest properties) and people who spend only a tiny fraction of their spending in daily life.

Because Washington State has no income tax, it has disproportionately higher sales and property taxes which support the rule of law, public infrastructure, etc.. I'm not necessarily against an income tax, but you would think that if the current level of taxation has worked for decades, then implementing an income tax would mean a lowering of the other taxes to keep the tax burden (and therefore state revenue) about the same. Strangely, I see no such tax cut being proposed.

Penalizing people? Taxes are not a penalty. They are what you owe to have things like Roads, Public Education, Police and Firemen.
Rich people who employ people doubly benefit from those services in that their workers benefit from them making their companies that much more functional and secure. Why should they not pay higher taxes for the extra benefits they get?

When did we become a country when it has been decided you have too much, you don't deserve what you earned

When did contributing 5% of the personal income above $200K to the running of a civilized society become too burdensome and greedy? You certainly deserve most of that money, but to say that 1-2% of your total income is too big a price to pay is pretty selfish and counter-productive.

Note that "five and more employees" also includes Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, and so on. If you look here [washingtonpost.com] you'll read that only 2 or 3 percent of "small" businesses fall into the top two tax brackets ($250K or more, this article discussing the Obama plan). In that 2 or 3 percent, you find business like:
Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts
PricewaterhouseCoopers
the Tribune Corp.
Bechtel

This is NOT a tax on the "heart" of small business, as you claim.

I note, also, the implicit assumption that people who earn a lot, worked hard for it, in some sort of a positive sense of the word "work" (as opposed to the sort of work that a bank robber or an embezzler does). You did notice, surely, that the rocket surgeons on Wall Street who devised all this CDO madness that so thoroughly trashed our economy, were extremely well paid?

Billionaires only exist because the people let them. They can either graciously return a very small fraction of what they have taken in a gesture towards keeping those they've exploited well fed and educated, or they can be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. Their choice.

Civilization is expensive. Since the benefits of civilization accrue disproportionately to the rich, they should bear a disproportionate amount of the cost. If you don't like it, we don't have to have civilization. But I don't think you're going to like the alternative.

They can either graciously return a very small fraction of what they have taken in a gesture towards keeping those they've exploited well fed and educated, or they can be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

So, basically, you're taking the same strongarm robbery position as your average mafia don, and calling it "civilization."

No it wouldn't. A 9% tax on ~$1.1 million would break even in one year. I have a sneaking suspicion those guys make more than $1.1 million in a year, and they will probably do so for more than one year.

If you live in the metro, own a home, and your wife stays at home with the kids - making $200,000 hardly qualifies you as "rich". Especially if you are a small business owner.

From the Summary:

(cutoffs are doubled for joint returns).

The way I take this is they'd have to make 400K before they hit the tax.

Also note that the small business owner doesn't pay himself a $400k+ salary, he pays himself $30k-$100k or so and reinvests the rest in the business, hiring workers and increasing the value of his assets (the business) - which lets him sell it for a profit and pay just 15% capital gains tax and 0 income tax on those gains. His car? Company property, he pays no personal tax on it it - ditto for the insurance on that vehicle. Don't you wish you could deduct the cost of your car insurance too? Ditto for medica

Except that if you're married and she stays at home and you file jointly the cut off is $400,000. Personally, paying 5% state income tax on the portion of my household income that exceeds $400,000 sounds like a good problem to have.

Maybe they also figured out that with the fear of unemployment and difficulty getting another job looming over many people's heads, that many workers are willing to work harder and longer in order to make sure they keep their jobs, so the companies can more easily increase profits by overworking their workers rather than hiring new ones.

Unemployment is only 4.6% for those with a bachelor's degree or higher. Considering the kinds of jobs that are in the majority at Microsoft and Amazon, I'd say they're doing enough to create jobs already.

Well then, what if you aren't married?I don't think it's any better to beat up on single professionals who are homeowners and simply live responsibly and make good salaries.

We are spenders and investors, we aren't on the government dole. We are the people that they in government say they want to create - self sufficient professionals, investors and spenders - so why slap down the responsible class in taxes?

These people need the tax BREAKS because they are buying durable goods and investing, not sending the

Simply put, if you're making over $200,000 and you're finding it hard to make ends meet, you're living well outside your means. Don't look for sympathy because you can't afford your million dollar home, your five cars, and the yacht.

You know, I was writing a whole rebuttal and just decided to delete it.

This is such a simple concept. Just because someone makes more money, that doesn't entitle them to being "off the hook" when it comes to funding the country. The simple truth is, the government needs $x to run the country and the citizens need to foot the bill. There are those that are in real danger of losing everything because their situation puts them in that predicament. Then there are those that make more than enough to fund their expenses and toys. One of those two should be responsible for a larger chunk of the $x the government needs.

When I get my next raise, I expect to bump up to the next tax bracket. And rightfully so...

If you can't figure out how to budget your $200,000+ salary to accommodate the above, you're living outside your means.

You keep parroting this bullshit notion that the personal income of the rich is used to "create jobs". More jobs are created in their businesses when the _business_ expands and/or otherwise has the funds to create new positions/salaries. If Ballmer makes another $100k this year, he isn't going to immediately create a new $100k job and redistribute his personal earnings to support the new position. That's an absolutely ludicrous notion.

Demand creates jobs.
To increase aggregate demand, we could lower taxes on the people creating that demand by taxing the suppliers at a higher rate. Suddenly, there is more money to fuel greater demand, increasing profits and creating new jobs. Providing more government services and directly stimulating the economy (subsidizing education or health care, providing unemployment benefits, hiring workers for construction/bureaucracy) also effectively puts more money in peoples' pockets. The money being taken from the rich is money that was not necessarily going to be injected back into the economy but could be saved or invested outside of the country, taking money out of the economy, at least in the short term. The less money you have, the more likely you are going to spend every dollar of it in your local economy; in effect this wealth transfer allows more money to be injected into the economy through purchase of consumer goods rather than being hoarded or gambled with through the stock market and other investments, which may not show returns at all, and probably not in the short term, which will keep money out of the economy.
So yes, through wealth transfers, increasing taxes can create new jobs by shuffling funds away from higher-level investments to middle-class spending on consumer goods.

The biggest conservative BS myth is that they *earned* every dollar they've made - as if they're an island unto themselves and society had nothing to do with it. I suggest we drop those millionaires into Jamaica or some other destitute third-world country. When they fail to become equally rich in Jamaica as they did in America, then we've proved that the society around them has something to do with their wealth.

Washington has the most regressive tax in the nation. The poorest are paying the majority of the taxes. The poorest pay 17% of their income to taxes, while the richest pay less than 3%. This law will even it out a bit, but the poorest will still be paying more as a percentage than the richest.

The people most likely to put the money back into the economy are the people that need it most. The poorest are most likely to spend whatever money they have at local businesses. The richest people don't need to spend the money, and are very likely to spend it outside the state anyway. Remember, this is a state tax. We want the money to be spent here, to stimulate the state economy. Buying stocks with the money in some foreign company (something the rich might do) does nothing for the state. Buying a beer at the local pub does.

This Republican idea of giving all the money to the rich and they will take care of everything is complete bullshit. It doesn't work.

The worst political development in American history was that it gradually became ok to just vote other people's money to yourself.

No, the worst political development in American history was that it suddenly became ok to run the country into the ground so the greedy rich could hold onto a little more of their money, and managed (brilliantly) to convince the gullible poor to support them.

Following the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court, the corporations are people too with full and unmitigated free speech rights. It also ruled spending is speech. There are no disclosure laws, and next year they will make sure they will create corporations for the exclusive purpose of donating money to election campaigns. Thus you will never know who is funding what campaign, which journalists are on the pay roll of whom, which professors are writing academic papers funded by "research" dollars from those with vested interests. So it is just a blip. Next year when strange ballot initiatives come from nowhere and get enormous media play and succeed you will never know what hit you.

BTW, if corporations are people too, then isn't stock market really buying and selling people? So owning stock of a corporation makes you a slave owner?

Is he even collecting one? I think all of his money is in the form of stocks and investments and he's probably already bought about anything he'll need big ticket item wise. Does this tax include capitol gains? I'll fully support a 75% tax on the rich a year after you give me $50M. I wonder what his position would have been 15 years ago.

Once you are wealthy an income tax doesn't matter. It's only a problem while you are trying to become wealthy. Income tax helps prevent more people from being wealthy which is why the elite wealthy like it. It's like getting the state to declare the area around your country club a state park so that nobody can build there.

That reminds me a lot of how the rich are bitching about having to pay another 4% on their income taxes, despite not having to pay Social Security taxes on income over $106,800 (6.2% from you, 6.2% from the person paying you). That means that anyone in the 25% or 28% tax bracket is actually paying a higher rate of taxes than the top level. Do people not realize this? I'd be more than willing to keep the top marginal rate on income at 35% if the cap is removed on Social Security taxes.

As far as Federal taxes go, the rates are a bit higher for higher income, but when you take into account deductions, the richer you are, the less you pay in general. Their are billion dollar corporations (and probably individuals) that pay nothing in income tax. In my own personal experience, as my income grows, my tax as a percentage of income has decreased because I can deduct more from my income.

The Republican philosophy is: Give all the money to the rich, and they will take care of everything. It hasn't worked, and never has. We are paying the price for that now.

In Washington state, there is no state income tax, so the state taxes come primarily from sales and property taxes, licensing, and business taxes. Everyone pays for these taxes. The less you make, the higher the percentage of your income goes to taxable items, so the tax burden as a percentage of income is much higher.

Slashdotters know a lot about technology. And apparently little about politics and how to do even a quick Google search.

We (Washington) passed Initiative 960 a few years ago, which required a 2/3 vote to increase taxes. Two years later our Legislature simply struck out those provisions... by majority (not 2/3) vote of them, no public ballot.

The income tax initiative would enable an income tax and limit it to the very rich, but only for two years. Then the tax-hungry reps would almost certainly again overturn the voters and lower the rates by simple majority. They cannot put an income tax in, due to our Constitution, but if WE put one in, they can subvert it in two years.

I'm not making enough money to have to pay this tax, I live in Washington State and I'm opposed to this. Why? Washington State has no income tax at all right now. Unless you require everyone to file you will have low compliance.

This initiative may be cost neutral by getting rid of the Washington Business and Occupation tax, which means the resources directed toward that can be used for processing the income tax returns. It does not require that all citizens file. Instead it only requires those that would actually have to pay the tax to file.

I think it's clear where this is going. The state will end up generating less revenue than expected due to this non-compliance. It will then either have to raise the tax or extend the filing requirement to more people to identify the people who are not complying.

Finally, it is very likely that this income tax will expand beyond the limits that it has now, either by no action on the part of the legislature as inflation raises the amount of money that people earn over time or by direct action of the legislature to raise more funds.

Rather, as a former business owner in this state and a citizen I support the state simply effectively enforcing the Business and Occupation taxes we have now. Microsoft has been avoiding paying this tax on a huge proportion of their revenue by running the revenue through an office in Nevada. I'm sure there are other companies in the area that have been evading this tax.

If the state is unable to force a large and very well known tax evader to comply with tax law, it's unlikely that they'll be able to force a large number of individuals to comply when they don't even have the information to determine who they are.

I live in Seattle, which has a sales tax of about 10%. That tax system is unbalanced, as it causes the people who make the least amount of money to pay the highest proportion of their income.

Assuming that the lower class spends more or less all of what it makes, that sets up a good 10% tax on total income (more if they borrow; statistics show that on average, Americans spend more than they earn), whereas someone in the proposed income tax bracket of $200,000+ spends closer to 1-2% of total income on sales taxes. So there's a 10% tax on the $20,000-homeless crowd, and a 1-2% tax on the most well-to-do. Applying a 9% income tax to the upper bracket at least gets it close to an even 10% across the board.

But I'm playing devil's advocate here. I can't in good conscience support what amounts to a special tax on a minority group, even if that group is better off than I. Skipping the sales tax altogether and just putting a flat 10% income tax across the board would be the most appropriate, I think.

I am not rich but I do make more than 200k. You know why? I employ people and am an S-Corp. The current tax format in Washington is actually fair. I pay a % right off the top for the business. I don't pay off profit, I pay off GROSS!. An income tax on top of that would literally double my tax burden.

Obama? Since when is he the governor of Washington State? Personally I don';t care because I don't live there. Me worrying about WA's tax would be like some guy in Poland worrying about a tax increase in Portugal.

However I like the idea of 0% income tax on the first $200,000. I wish my state had that. Heck I wish the whole continent had that.

Just for the background information. The State of Washington does not have personal or corporate income tax at this time. So to add a 5% income tax, which has very little deductions, would obviously sounds like a big change for the State.

I can't really comment too much on the benefit of having the tax excised, since I live in Texas and we do not have state income tax, either. That is a real plus for me. I do like the fact that they skipped the entire section where people making less than 200k. I think that is wise.

However, to be fair. A sudden increase of 9% of the tax liability is quite a bit, from the perspective of going from 0 to 9% in one jump. Also there are no provisions on how to adjust the brackets up with the inflations in the coming decades. Keep in mind any tax code in place will be in place for a long time, so if the spirit of the law is to tax the highest income brackets, they need to address that in the proposed bill as well.

There's a reason that Washington state has avoided an income tax for so many years... because they already have other taxes in place of an income tax.

For instance, one of my favorites is the cost of registering (and renewing) a vehicle license plate. The cost of a license tag is a percentage of the value of the car. Every year. And it has an odd impact on the auto market. When you finance a car purchase from a dealer, the first year's license fee is usually rolled into the financing, so you don't really

Then why not vote with your feet and move to Washington State or somewhere else instead of complaining and continuing to pay the Illinois taxes you oppose? If enough people do it, maybe even Chicago will get the message (although it will probably take nearly everybody moving out of state for them to get the message.)

There's a reason people live in large communities, and security/services are two of the big reasons (even if both are not consistent across the board).

I guess I just don't understand this. I grew up in the more unpopulated areas of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. We never had to lock our doors and never experienced any kind of crime. It's only as I've lived in more populated areas that I've had to lock up the house when we leave and the car any time I walk into a store, worry about vandalism, lock up the lawnmower and yard tools to keep them from being stolen, etc.... My experience has always been that the fewer people there are around, the smaller the community, the fewer security concerns there are. Small communities tend self-police because everybody knows everybody and it's very hard to keep theft of property or money a secret for very long. It always comes out, and when it does, being a thief in a small community is a very uncomfortable position to be in. Nobody will trust that person, do business with them, talk to them, they will probably lose their job, etc... They become a pariah and they either leave the area or make things right and change their ways. In fact, just being a major jerk in a small community will bring about enough consequences that either the behavior changes or the person ends up moving away.

That's security that police can never provide in heavily populated areas because it's people policing themselves, and that's always the preferable solution to any problem.

Lets put this in simple terms.
Imagine you're a farmer with 30 acres. It takes 20 acres to feed your family. 66% of the crop takes care of your immediate needs and 33% goes to savings and taxes. At a rate of 25%, the government takes 1/4 of your crop and you have 9% for savings. The government is having a bad year and decides to raise taxes. The rate is going up from 25% to 30%. No problem, you say. That leaves 3.3% of what you farm as a buffer to sell and use for savings. Last year you saved your

That's a retarded example. Farms are treated as businesses, and businesses only pay taxes on profits, not revenue. If you don't post any profits because all your food is consumed by yourself and family with no additional crops to sell, you don't pay any taxes. Even if you do sell some crops, that's only revenue, it's not profit until it surpasses all the costs of doing business (buying a tractor, buying a backhoe, etc.) In fact, the tax system -encourages- spending, because businesses can deduct expenditures from their taxable income. If you spent all your profits on re-investments, buying better equipment, hiring staff, etc., you don't 'lose' any money to the government.

Complaining about having to pay to support the poor? Then help them stop being poor! Henry Ford knew it - when he was asked why he paid his workers more than the competition, he said "I want them to be able to buy my cars."

Looks like Gates Sr. also gets it - growing the tax base takes money, and you can't get that money by taxing people who don't have it.

The middle and lower classes are no further ahead after 3 decades, after inflation, while the top income earners have seen real increases in their finances.

Stimulus is best applied to the people at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, as they're going to spend that cash immediately. The state is best to enact this extremely modest tax increase, and then to put the funds toward local improvement projects (which hire labourers and tradesmen), and funding a social safety net for the many many people who are under- or unemployed.

And trickle-down isn't bullshit, when you consider that it's the rich who hire the workers. If the government takes away all the rich person's money (say 100% income over 1 million) then the rich can't hire anyone.

Except that neither of these CEOs are going to be using their personal income to hire new workers. You might have something of a point if this was a corporate tax initiative, but it's not. Secondly, trickle-down is voodoo economics no matter how much the right tries to spin it.

Except that neither of these CEOs are going to be using their personal income to hire new workers.

When these guys build new houses for themselves they create jobs. When they hire help to maintain those big homes they create jobs. When they buy new cars they create jobs. When they invest their money they create jobs.

I believe it was Napoleon Hill who gave the advice that if you want to get wealthy yourself you need to hang around with rich people, because just the opportunities they let slide because they might think they are "too small" will be enough to give you a good start on your way to wealth if you're ambitious enough to go after them. It wasn't stated in those exact words, but the meaning was the same.

Except that neither of these CEOs are going to be using their personal income to hire new workers.

When these guys build new houses for themselves they create jobs. When they hire help to maintain those big homes they create jobs. When they buy new cars they create jobs. When they invest their money they create jobs.

I believe it was Napoleon Hill who gave the advice that if you want to get wealthy yourself you need to hang around with rich people, because just the opportunities they let slide because they might think they are "too small" will be enough to give you a good start on your way to wealth if you're ambitious enough to go after them. It wasn't stated in those exact words, but the meaning was the same.

I'm sorry that's wrong. There is a couple of problems with this. Your hypothetical CEO would buy how many cars in a 5 year period? 1? 2? Yeah, that would really stimulate the economy. Why do you assume your CEO would build a new home? how many homes do you think your hypothetical CEO would build? If you already a place on Lake Washington, prime real estate, why would you go anywhere else?

Let's consider giving the middle class all that money, how many cars do you think 50 people making 80K would buy if they came into money? How many can now afford to let someone else do their yards? How many books/dvd/theater are they going to do? I bet a lot omre than your single CEO. Let me give you a clue, the middle class runs this country. We are the engines of this economy. This country's market is the best market in the world because we are trained to spend. We are the ultimate consumers.You people who enable to rich are just cutting your own throat. They don't need your help. If they need to talk to govt they can attend a $2000 dollar a plate fundraiser and talk to the candidate directly. They got all kinds of avenues to whine.

In the US there are a plethora of ways to invest money that have little or nothing to do with creating jobs in the US. Would someone investing in IBM be creating jobs in the US or India and China? How about investing in Boeing? To a lot of people it matters where the jobs are created.

Buying 100,000 shares of already issued stock is an investment, but does nothing to create jobs. Only some sort of venture capital (defined loosely, e.g., funding a new company or increasing production at a company) creates jobs.

I also suspect that the state of Washington believes it has created an economic climate that allowed people to become very rich, but many of those very rich are investing in things outside the state of Washington. This tax keeps more of the money in the state.

So, you're saying that if we insert money at the top, it benefits the guys at the bottom because high level executives and such create lots of jobs directly from their personal income?

From my PoV it makes more sense to insert money at the bottom. The guys at the bottom are most likely to spend it, which in turn puts in in corporate coffers, and the corporatations as an entity are the ones creating the jobs, not the executives from their personal wealth.

The government inserting money anywhere is a bad idea. It mostly gets wasted with no real benefit to show for it. Just look at the effects of the stimulus and such. For the "bottom," they spend several hundred thousand dollars per job to create a job that pays the worker $40k or so per year. They also paid a lot to people in unemployment benefits and welfare, and a lot of those people are simply sitting back largely doing nothing until the government stops paying them for not working. For the "top,", they bailed out banks, who largely used the money to pay off their foreign-held debt rather than loan it out to Americans. None of that helped the U.S. very much, but we're stuck paying hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for it. All of this exemplifies how poorly the government does when it tries to "stimulate" the economy by spending. It's a lot like trying to dig yourself out of a hole.

Tax cuts are NOT the government inserting money; the money is yours and the government simply takes less of it. If you want people to have money, why not let them keep it instead of taking it from the people, running it through the government, and then giving only some of it back to the people, because you had to spend a good amount of it on governmental overhead?

So, you're saying that if we insert money at the top, it benefits the guys at the bottom because high level executives and such create lots of jobs directly from their personal income?

Why, of course they do! They create such high paying careers as: gardener, pool boy, cleaning lady, house cook, babysitter, nanny, and personal shopper, among others! And as we all know, these skilled positions come with great benefits and perks that provide more than enough to raise a family on! And when they're done hiring workers, they can invest the excess in assets that yield high returns and further create jobs like extra homes, the market, and companies that deal in derivatives!

We've tried trickle-down economics for the better part of 30 years, and the result has been a steady drop in real wages for the poorest Americans, a stagnation of real salaries for middle-class Americans, and a massive increase in income for upper-class Americans. Given that, please explain the evidence for the trickle-down effect, where the upper-class Americans hire middle-class and poor Americans at good rates.

It is impossible for a state to spend more than it takes in. When a state can print money then we may have something to talk about. As it is now, they are selling bonds to pay for their stuff which is probably a wise decision because if they laid people off from government service, those people would probably be on unemployment for 6+ months.

Initiative 1098 calls for a reduction in state property taxes and the elimination of the business and occupation tax for some of the state's smallest businesses. Proceeds from the income tax would be used for health services and public education, proponents argue.

Since 1098 is reducing taxes for small businesses and lowering state property taxes, I'm guessing the answer is Washington State.

Complaining about having to pay to support the poor? Then help them stop being poor!

Most taxes go to pay the salaries of government employees, who are certainly not poor.

Henry Ford knew it - when he was asked why he paid his workers more than the competition, he said "I want them to be able to buy my cars."

No, Ford paid his workers more because he wanted the best employees and he was losing vast amounts of money having to continually train new ones as the experienced employees left for jobs that paid better.

Do you really think that Ferrari pay the guy who bolts the doors on enough to buy a Ferrari?

You have to include both veterans affairs (pensions, benefits, etc) and much of the DOE budget (nuclear research, etc) in that figure. That bumps war to # 1. Also, war doesn't even pretend to pay taxes into the system, whereas social security recipients paid something into the pot.

That's such a straw man argument -- were both Bezos and Ballmer planning on:

1)...using the money they would otherwise be taxed on to give their employees raises?2)...bringing jobs sent to low-cost overseas work centers back to the US?3)...repatriating H1B visa workers, allowing demand to increase wages and allow greater work opportunity for Washington residents?

I'll take a wild guess and assume "none of the above" and that both men are merely parroting vague anti-tax sentiments, following the advice of paid consultants & lobbyists, or, perhaps, merely greedy and have no plans to pay higher wages or offer greater work opportunity.

First, "Obama" (really the US Legislature) wouldn't have this revenue to stimulate with. That titillating pleasure would go to Governor of Washington Chris Gregoire. Second, if the choice were Balmer and Obama, I'd say Obama would more likely spend it in a manner that benefits the most people in the USA; just look at the value of Micrsoft stock since Balmer took the reigns at MS.

Third, why does every time taxation and government spending come up, does Obama get blamed? Taxes were too low during the GB43 admin to support the level of spending his administration endorsed. The proposed increases in taxes of the Obama administration would be lower than during the Reagan administration. And a vast majority of the spending that has so far occurred during the Obama administration was congressionally scheduled spending from the GB43 administration. And of the remaining optional government spend, it went toward correcting the GB43 caused recession.

Parent is just a right-wing nutjob who'll blame *everything* on Obama. His car didn't want to start this AM, so it must be Obama's fault... because he's black! Or a democrat. Or a muslim. Only Glenn Back can make everything right by.......... what is the Glenn Beck can do? Or Palin? Or any of those other teabaggers? They have no plan. Other than get elected. Or make noise.

I really, really hope that Obama *doesn't* win the presidential election next time around. Heck, if Obama is as smart as I hope he is,

I really, really hope that Obama *doesn't* win the presidential election next time around. Heck, if Obama is as smart as I hope he is, he won't even run. Because the Republican who gets in, in 2012 will face the same problems Obama did, and that guy isn't going to make a miracle happen either. And then you people, who blame everything on Obama will finally have to admit that the turkey you voted for aint any better.

You assume that some sort of rationality is involved in this equation, trust me that it isn'

Exactly what reality do you live in where 200k is a low threshold? That is not middle class. A household that earns 180k a year is in the top 5%. That means an individual earning 200k is within the top few percent.

It is HARD to earn 200k a year. If you think otherwise, you have no concept of "average". The median wage for workers varies depending on how it is calculated. On the high side, for full time workers, ages 25 to 64, it is approximately 40k. Median wages for those with doctorates are about 8